FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUGUST 10, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1017 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00519 -CV -CO -W FRANK HARTLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us BRIA N B UT LE R, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( A ug us t 10, 200 5) Be fo re CA RN E S, MA RC U S an d C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Th e Pla int if f h a s n ot f

ile d a br ie f i n th is a

pp e a l. 1 2 In this interlocutory

appeal, Brian Butler challenges the decision of the district
co urt de ny ing his m oti on to dis m iss
. Bu tle r co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de nyin g h is m ot io n t o d is m is s g ro un de d u po n q ua li fie d i m m un it y . W e ag ree.

1 The a llegations in Plaintiff’ s com plaint are sufficient to show that Butler w as acting within his d iscretionary authority as Associate Dire ctor of Hum an Resources fo r th e Cit y

of Tu sc al oo sa . Se e Sm ith v . Sie ge lm an , 322 F
. 3d 1 290, 129 4- 95 ( 11th Ci r. 200 3)
. F or

e xa m ple , in an ef

fo rt to hold the Ci ty an d th e Ci vil S er vic e Bo ar d of T us c a l oo sa

v i c a r i ou sl y

l i abl e f or B ut l e r ’ s c on du c t , the P l a i nt i f f a l l e ge s t hatB ut ler
wa s empl o yedb y t h e Ci t y as As s o ci at e D i re ct o r, an dl at erDi re ct o r, o f t h e C i t y’ s H um anRe sour ce D ep ar

tm en t, w hic h he a lle ge d “pr ovi des su ppor t t o th e Ci ty

of Tu s ca l o o s a Ci v i l Se rv i ce Bo ar d i n t h e man ag emen tan dg o v ern i n g [s i c] o f t h e C i t y’ s H um anRe sour ce s. ” ( R. 1- 1 a t 15
. ) P la int if f furthe r state s th at : [e] ach and every act which Plaintiff alleges wa s com m itted by Butler .

. . unde r co lor of law ; and by the Ci ty , a nd C ivi l S er vic e Bo ar d (b

y and thr ough it s/t he ir r es pe ct iv e em

plo ye es , re pre se nta tiv es and

/or age nts

) under co lor of la w and within the line and sco pe of such employees’, agents’, representatives’, job duties with th e City and/or Civil Service B o ard ; and/ or

w as so c om

m itt ed a nd/ or oth er w ise pe rp etrate d by De fendants, j ointl y

and severally , under c olor of law as an . . . em ploy ee, ag en t, an d/ orrep res en ta ti ve of t he Defen da nt s . . . .3

( Id . at 2) (em

phasis add ed). Such allegations are sufficient to show that Butler w as act in g wit hi n, o r reas on ab ly relat edto , th e o ut er p eri m et er o f hi s o ffi ci al du ti es . See M aggi o v . Sip

ple , 21 1 F .3d13 46 , 13 50 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). W e al so a gr ee w ithBu tle r’ s c ont en tio n th at the P la int if

f ha s fa ile d to al le ge a ny vi ol at io n of a cl earl y es tabl is he d c on st it ut io na l ri gh t. Se e Sauc ie r v . Ka tz , 533 U. S. 194, 201 , 121 S
. Ct
. 215 1, 215 6 ( 2001 ). T he Pl ai nti ff co nc ed ed be low that his c la im is “ fa ct ua lly nov el , ” an d he ha s no t i de nti fi ed any c as e that di re ct ly

sup ports h is theor y of li ab ili ty . ( R. 1- 10 at 11
. ) T he P la int if f re lie s pr im ar ily

on V ill age of W illowbro ok v. Ole ch , 528 U. S. 562, 120 S. Ct. 1073 (2000) in sup port of his Equal Protection claim
. But, neither the Suprem e Court nor this circuit has ever rec ogni zed
an Olec h -s ty le c la im

in the c ont ex t of publ ic em plo ym en t. Be ca

use of the a dm itt ed ly novel th eo ry

here, Plaintiff c annot m ake out any clear ly established cons titutio nal vi ol at i o n . See B rosseau v. Haugen , __ U
. S. __, 125 S
. Ct
. 596 , 599 ( 2004 ) (“ It is im portant t o e m

pha siz e that this inquir

y ‘ m ust be unde rt ak en in l igh t of the spe ci fi c
co nte xt o f the c as e, not

a s abr oa d ge ne ra l pr opos iti on. ’ ” (quot ing Saucier , 533 U. S.
a t2 0 1 , 1 2 1 S
. C t . a t2 1 5 1 ) )
. B u t l e r i s th e r e f o r e e n t i t l e dt o qu a l i f

i e di mm u n i t y. T he order

de ny ing Bu tle r’ s m oti on t o di sm iss is re ve rs ed a nd the c as e is
rem anded to the dis trict court with instructio ns to dism iss the action against Butler. REVERSED AND REMANDED.